Dataset Information

Retrospective review of work-related injuries sustained by foreign workers: a single centre experience over 10 years.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To investigate current patterns of work-related injuries sustained by foreign workers in Singapore and compare them to a decade ago. Secondary aim to analyse usefulness of selected trauma scores in this context.

Design

Retrospective review of trauma registry of a single centre, from 1 April to 30 June 2015. Data compared with those from similar study performed at same centre in 2004.

Setting

Emergency department (ED) of 1500-bedded acute urban public hospital in Singapore.

Participants

1094 foreign workers with work-related injuries were included. Tourists, foreign students, non-work-related injuries, re-attendances for the same condition were excluded.

Results

Mean age of participants was 32.8 years (SD 7.8), 90.0% were men. ED attendance was lowest on Sundays. Mechanism of injury: blunt (78.2%), penetrating (19.2%), burns (2.6%). Compared to 2004, 5% of foreign workers required admission (vs 19.6% in 2004, p≤0.0001), 8.0% underwent day or inpatient surgical procedures (vs 13.2% in 2004, p≤0.0001), 41.6% were referred to specialist outpatient clinics (vs 27.6% in 2004, p≤0.0001), 12.5% were referred to primary care follow-up (vs 29.9% in 2004, p≤0.0001). Mean duration of sick days was 4.3 (vs 5.1 in 2004, p≤0.0001). Of admitted patients, 49.1% had extremity injuries and 36.3% had head and neck injuries. Mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) for admitted patients was 3.64 (SD 3.1) (vs 4.3 (SD 5.5) in 2004, p=0.39). Mean Revised Trauma Score (RTS) for admitted patients was 7.74 (SD 0.39) (vs 7.8 (SD 0.2) in 2004, p=0.07). Of discharged patients, 48.9% had extremity injuries and 48.9% had external injuries. There was no death.

Conclusion

Compared to 2004, there were fewer major/fatal work-related injuries and an increased proportion of minor injuries. ISS and RTSs were of limited use in this setting.

SUBMITTER: Quek YJD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8112445 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To analyze the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of small for size syndrome (SFSS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT).Through-out more than 10 years: During the period from April 2003 to the end of 2013, 174 adult-to-adults LDLT (A-ALDLT) had been performed at National Liver Institute, Menoufiya University, Shibin Elkoom, Egypt. We collected the data of those patients to do this cohort study that is a single-institution retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected database analyzing the incidence, risk factors, prevention, treatment and outcome of SFSS in a period started from the end of 2013 to the end of 2015. The median period of follow-up reached 40.50 m, range (0-144 m).SFSS was diagnosed in 20 (11.5%) of our recipients. While extra-small graft [small for size graft (SFSG)], portal hypertension, steatosis and left lobe graft were significant predictors of SFSS in univariate analysis (P = 0.00, 0.04, 0.03, and 0.00 respectively); graft size was the only independent predictor of SFSS on multivariate analysis (P = 0.03). On the other hand, there was lower incidence of SFSS in patients with SFSG who underwent splenectomy [4/10 (40%) SFSS vs 3/7 (42.9%) no SFSS] but without statistical significance, However, there was none significant lower incidence of the syndrome in patients with right lobe (RL) graft when drainage of the right anterior and/or posterior liver sectors by middle hepatic vein, V5, V8, and/or right inferior vein was done [4/10 (28.6%) SFSS vs 52/152 (34.2%) no SFSS]. The 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients with SFSS were 30%, 30%, 25%, 25%, 25% and 25% respectively, while, the 6-mo, 1-, 3-, 5-, 7- and 10-year survival in patients without SFSS were 70.1%, 65.6%, 61.7%, 61%, 59.7%, and 59.7% respectively, with statistical significant difference (P = 0.00).SFSG is the independent and main factor for occurrence of SFSS after A-ALDLT leading to poor outcome. However, the management of this catastrophe depends upon its prevention (i.e., selecting graft with proper size, splenectomy to decrease portal venous inflow, and improving hepatic vein outflow by reconstructing large draining veins of the graft).

Project description:BackgroundPatients with a rectal foreign body (RFB) are still a rare entity in general surgery departments but with an increasing incidence over the last years. This case is sometimes difficult to treat, and due to a lack of standardized treatment options, the aim of the study was to present our clinical experiences with the diagnostic and therapeutic approach to RFBs and a review of the currently available literature.Materials and methodsData were collected retrospectively from the patient's records of 20 patients who were treated due to an RFB between 2006 and 2016. Patient's demographics, circumstances of insertion, inserted objects, clinical presentation, laboratory and imaging results, as well as surgical treatment and duration of hospital stay were analyzed. Additionally, a review of the literature was performed with the search items "rectal foreign body" and "surgical therapy". Because many publications were just case reports, we did not perform a meta-analysis or a systematic review.ResultsTwenty-two cases in 20 patients (80% male) presented to the emergency room. The mean age was 38.5±13.7 years. In 68.2% of the cases, the cause of RFB was due to sexual preferences. The following objects were inserted: six dildos, three vibrators, two bottles, one glass, one deodorant, one apple, one fever thermometer, multiple glass fragments and razor blades in one patient and six unknown objects. For 18 RFBs, manual peranal removal without anesthesia was possible in the emergency room, but two patients required intravenous analgesia. Two patients were transferred to the operating room and the foreign body was removed via the anus under general anesthesia. Open surgery with a laparotomy was necessary for two complicated cases. One patient was in need of surgery due to a vacuum generated by the RFB, whereas the second patient suffered from a sigmoid perforation. In all cases, there was no morbidity or mortality.ConclusionIn most cases, the removal of an RFB can be performed peranally in the emergency room without further complications, therefore representing the therapy of choice for RFB. Only in cases with perforation, acute abdomen, or failed peranal approaches, surgery is indicated to remove the foreign body.